§ For Income Tax purposes income shall not be deemed to include so much of any person's income as he or she may be deemed, for the purpose of any assessment of income for the purpose of assessing unemployment benefit, to be contributing to family resources.—[Mr. Mallalieu.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 5.17 p.m.
§ Mr. MALLALIEU
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The words of this new Clause are really quite clear. The object of it is merely to ensure that someone who is contributing to the resources of his family under the needs test shall not have to pay Income Tax upon the money which he is deemed to have contributed to those resources. Those of us who sit on these benches are in agreement with the principle that one should contribute to the upkeep of one's family within certain limits, but it seems to us hard that a man who may be struggling to better his position in the world and may have met with some success, at any rate to the extent of paying Income Tax, should have to pay that tax upon money from which he has derived no benefit whatever. Take the example of a young man who is perhaps the son of a labourer, has had a secondary education and attained a good post, and may be paying a considerable sum in Income Tax. The father comes under the needs test and is refused a certain amount of payment by the authorities on the ground that his son is earning a large sum. The son, therefore, has to pay to the family resources to keep his father to a certain extent while he is unemployed. At the end of the year the Income Tax collector says that he must pay a tax on all his income. That is a simple position, and it does not require many words to explain it to the Chancellor who, I have no doubt, will be sympathetic towards it. I understand the question has been discussed before, but these words are new, and I hope the Chancellor will give them his serious attention for they remove any difficulty that has been felt before. They are clear and will be easily interpreted by the officials.
§ 5.21 p.m.
§ Mr. GRAHAM WHITE
I wish to support the Second Reading of the new Clause. A new Clause to the Finance Bill to effect the same purpose was moved last year and also to the Finance Bill of 1932. In the discussion which took place on those occasions it was manifest that the whole Committee, and I think I may include the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, were in sympathy with the object of the Clause. Indeed, it could hardly be otherwise, because it is manifestly unjust that a citizen of small means who, under the assessment of family needs, has practically the whole of his income assessed for the family maintenance, should receive on top of that liability a note calling on him to pay a considerable sum in Income Tax. Therefore, on previous occasions no word was spoken in the Committee which was not sympathetic with the object of the proposed Clause. There is manifestly a difficulty of an administrative character in meeting the case because Income Tax is an annual assessment whereas the incidence of this particular hardship may last from a week to a period of years. I think, however, that the words of the new Clause have overcome that difficulty.
The importance of the matter really runs somewhat beyond the question of individual hardship, because this particular form of the means test, which aggregates the whole of the family resources, is the most unpopular type of means test. From the moment it operates an entirely new relationship comes into the family, and parents are anxious whether their children intend to remain with them or whether the family will be broken up. That, in fact, often happens. The incidence of Income Tax has been in many cases a last straw which has broken up the family. It is the last straw which the individual has been able to bear. He has gone on for weeks and months contributing practically his whole income to the family pool, and then to his horror he receives an Income Tax demand for £8 or £9 which he is unable to meet. I know of my own knowledge many cases in which people earning £4 and £5 a week have had this disastrous experience. On the last occasion when this matter was before the Committee my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that, so far as it was possible within the existing rules, efforts would be made to deal 1579 with what was admitted to be a hardship and an injustice. In regard to many cases that have been brought to my notice in the intervening period of 12 months, the Income Tax authorities have dealt with them in a sympathetic and effective way. I think it is right to say that, but it will be far better, if it be possible, to find an effective Clause that will remove this matter from the realm of doubt and speculation. That is a thing which the Committee as a whole would wish to secure.
§ 5.25 p.m.
§ Mr. CURRY
I support my hon. Friends in pressing this new Clause on the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because I believe that there is here a real grievance. Those of us who represent industrial constituencies have had cases brought to our notice time and time again by different individuals. They are generally unmarried people who have made their own way in the world and have risen to a certain standard, and many of them are endeavouring to make preparations to get married and establish a home of their own. In 1931 the means test came along, and they were compelled by its operation to contribute to the household a larger proportion of their income than they had ever been in the habit of doing. Then they found later on that they got no allowance at all for that in respect of their Income Tax assessment. A grievance was felt by these people, and in many instances it cast a strain on family relationships.
The principle of the proposed Clause is not new. We have for years in our Income Tax law given relief to any person who maintains a dependent relative, but these cases cannot come within the regulations, because the regulations were made without regard to any of the circumstances which have risen in the administration of the test. I would like to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reality of the grievance which we are trying to bring to his notice. I believe it is true that those who are charged with the administration of the Income Tax law have found in their experience that the cases of this sort which come to their notice are genuine, and they have in every case, so far as the duties laid upon them will permit, done their utmost to meet them. 1580 That being so, we feel it all the more our duty to press for an amendment of the law to meet what is a general desire on the part of those who are charged with the administration in order that their duties may be lightened and that this grievance, which is a real and growing grievance, may be removed.
§ 5.28 p.m.
§ Mr. WILMOT
Although the Chancellor saw fit to examine the claims of civil servants which I have been putting forward with his blind eye, I trust that in this matter he will show some sympathy. Surely it is indefensible that, while a father of a family should be able to deduct a considerable proportion of his income before it becomes taxable, yet a person who is required by law to use part of his income for the support of unfortunate relatives should have that income taxed as if he were not supporting them at all. The case has been clearly put by hon. Members below the Gangway, and I am sure that all of us on these benches make a most urgent appeal to the Chancellor to remove this grievance. It may be that the Chancellor feels that the number of people whose incomes are large enough to attract Income Tax who are called upon to make these contributions is small, but there is a considerable amount of evidence that the number is a growing one, and that it will go on growing as the means test continues to operate, and when one realises that Income Tax is now payable by people who earn no more than £4 a week we get a very real grievance of very low paid employés having to pay tax on a small income, a very large proportion of which is used up in contributing to the support of dependent relatives, contributions which they are compelled by law to pay., I feel sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will indicate that some way will be found to remedy what is an obvious injustice.
§ 5.32 p.m.
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH
In supporting this Motion, I wish to correct one statement made by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). A single person with only £3 a week pays Income Tax. No excuse can be found for opposing this Clause on the ground that one is unable to assess what a man is paying to the family income, because most public 1581 assistance committees set off a certain amount which shall not be calculated, so that there is some way of assessing what the man actually contributes towards the family pool. In my own constituency, and throughout the City of Bradford generally, I have found complaints, first, that the man is given a very meagre allowance for his own use and then is asked to contribute towards the family income, although he may be the only one working out of three or four in a family, and, in the second place, after he has done so, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer then takes a further contribution from that already greatly reduced income. This would not he a very costly concession, and would appease what is a growing distaste on the part of the people who have to pay. The Chancellor has not given us very much in this Budget, and I think he could extend this little concession towards people who feel that they are being dealt with unjustly.
§ 5.34 p.m.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
It is quite true, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) said, that this matter has been discussed previously, and I thank him for his statement that the answer I gave last year was sympathetic and that the administration of the Income Tax law has been carried out with greater generosity than before; but, although the principle of the two cases is similar, this is an entirely different Clause. What it requires, apparently, is that in computing a person's income for Income Tax purposes no account shall be taken of so much of his income as may be deemed under the operation of the means test to be contributing to the family resources. Public assistance committees in administering the means test do not, in terms, deem a member of an unemployed person's household to be contributing to the family's needs. They simply take account, in assessing transitional payment, of the resources of the other members of that unemployed person's household, and those resources would presumably include that person's income.
We have to think of this matter not in terms of the old administration but in terms of the new Unemployment Assistance Board, and it may be taken that that authority, concerned with the 1582 administration of the means test, will not overlook the Income Tax payable by a member of the household when having regard to his personal requirements, which they are specifically enjoined to do. In so far as any hardship may persist or endure, it will not be a hardship of Income Tax, and my hon. Friends—one can understand their point of view—are simply using the Income Tax in this connection for a purpose for which it was never intended. I am glad that even those who have associated themselves with this Clause agree with the principle that a man should share the family responsibilities. In so far as that is a problem, it does not concern only the unemployed but applies to the whole community. We all have family responsibilities, and we cannot regard this as an Income Tax matter. I am sorry that the Government cannot accept this Clause as a modification of the present Income Tax procedure.
§ 5.37 p.m.
§ Sir PERCY HARRIS
I am sorry that we have had such an insipid reply from the Financial Secretary, who, with his remarkable intelligence, which we all recognise, has displayed, if he will forgive me for saying so, an inability to comprehend the case made by my hon. Friends. No one is a greater expert than he is on Income Tax. He knows that already under our law there are allowances for children, and that is an obvious precedent. As a married man gets an allowance for children, does it not seem equally reasonable that if a single man has to keep his mother and father, his sisters and brothers he should be allowed a similar reduction? In the mining, industrial and shipbuilding areas in the North many manual workers are out of employment, but there may be one member of the family who has a Civil Service appointment or is in a co-operative store and making his £4 or £5 a week. He is single and desires to get married, but he finds that under the working of the means test he is required to give up a very substantial part of his income to keep his sisters and brothers and his mother and father, and yet, with his depleted income, he finds the Income Tax collector coming along to collect the tax. The fact that he has to keep the whole of his family is not taken into account 1583 and he is mulcted in the tax just the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has very fairly said, in many parts of the country when the assessment is being made the assessment authorities have made an allowance in respect of such obligations borne by that man. They have felt the hardship was so great that they have turned a blind eye on the case, and been generous in their administration; but that is not in accordance with the law, and we now want to legalise what is very often done in practice.
If there is industrial unrest where is it likely to come from? From the intelligentsia, from the black-coated worker, from the man who has had the advantage of a secondary school education and, owing to the fact that he is quick-witted, has been able to win some Civil Service appointment or get some job in a co-operative store. All around him there is poverty and distress and his friends and relations are out of work, and he finds himself required, first, to maintain his family, and then to meet the demand of the Income Tax collector out of the money which is left and with which he is trying to make himself independent and to provide a home for himself. It would not be a difficult thing to meet our request. Where there is a will there is a way. It is true that the Income Tax law is already very complicated, and some people think too full of qualifications, but if the Government wanted to meet this case they could find the necessary words to insert in an Act of Parliament. The law does allow a concession to a man who has a boy at a secondary school or when he keeps his son at a University, and does it not seem equally reasonable that a single man who has to help to keep his family owing to unuemployment, for which he is not responsible, should be allowed a concession when his liability for Income Tax is being assessed?
We have the advantage of the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no one better understands the complexity of our whole industrial problem at the present time, the serious unrest there is in the country, and the importance of removing any feeling of injustice arising from the impression that the State is not acting fairly in the collection of this tax. 1584 I cannot believe that this would be a very heavy loss to the Exchequer, though we are not in a position to estimate the exact sum; but if something could be done to meet this very real sense of grievance I am sure the Government would be doing a really good thing and would give a great deal of satisfaction to a number of hard-working and honest people.
§ 5.43 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN
Before the Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke I wanted to ask him a question, and what he has said has enabled me to put that question more easily. He said that the public assistance authorities would not overlook the fact that Income Tax had been charged in these cases. Can he give the Committee an assurance that the Income Tax authorities will not overlook the fact that this assistance to his family has been charged against the man's income?
§ 5.44 p.m.
§ Mr. J. JONES
I am not going to travel from Dan to Beersheba in connection with this matter, but wish to put the case as it exists in my own constituency. There are men employed there who are public servants receiving what might be called fairly decent salaries for the work that they do. Unfortunately for them, their relatives are out of employment. Their fathers and mothers are not old enough to receive old age pension. We know what is happening, how men verging upon 60 years of age are not wanted. The father is out of work and the mother is out of work, and, in addition, the brothers and sisters of this man are out of work too. When the family apply for public assistance because the one son in work cannot afford to keep them all "the rule is run over them." "What is your income?" "None, so far as the family generally are concerned. They are out of employment, and there is nothing except unemployment pay, which only lasts for a short period." "Whom have you got?" "The eldest son"—and he is the one who has to foot the bill. Perhaps he is a married man with a couple of children of his own. He has those responsibilities to face, and he can also be charged with something towards the maintenance of the rest of the family because he happens to be in a certain position.
1585 Having paid that Income Tax—which is an unseen Income Tax so far as the Commissioners are concerned—he then has to pay another Income Tax. Is that fair? I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is full of sympathy, but we want him to be full of something more than sympathy; we want him to get down to brass tacks. Let him imagine himself in the position of the man about whom I am speaking. That is not an extraordinary case, because there are thousands of instances throughout Great Britain of men who are fortunate enough to be in a decent position, so far as ordinary life is concerned, and who find that their families are down and out and who have to face the issue of the means test. Let us have a means test all round. Let some of the people who are talking about this face it themselves. Would they like to keep their families? I have given the reason why a man has to pay Income Tax twice. He has to maintain his unfortunate family, including his brothers and sisters, because they are out of work, or he has to make a contribution towards their maintenance. He gets a demand from the Income Tax people for another contribution, and no allowance is given to him for those whom he has to maintain. It would be fair to give an allowance in those circumstances; therefore I am supporting the Clause.
§ 5.48 p.m.
§ Mr. WHITE
The statement has been attributed to me that Income Tax administration has been better than ever before. My knowledge does not entitle me to make a statement of that kind. What I wished to put on record was the fact that in some cases, where there was an admitted grievance of hardship, the administration had taken the circumstances into account and by some extension or interpretation of rules had been able to obviate the hardship. It has not been possible to do so in every case, and that is why my hon. Friend and
§ myself have raised the matter to-day. It is very desirable that a serious effort should be made to deal with the matter in a practical way. There are ways of contracting out. For example, a man in receipt of £3 or £4 a week is reduced to the position in which he has not a penny left. All has been spent on himself and his family, and then he has to face an Income Tax notice for £8 or £9. It is open to him to pay over the whole of the money that he gets on Friday night, and to repeat that payment as long as is necessary to clear off the debt. Then he goes to the public assistanec committee and says that he is in fact destitute, and asks to be relieved. This is a very important question, and some practical step should be taken to regularise the position once and for all.
§ 5.49 p.m.
§ Mr. JOHN WILMOT
I rise only to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain one remark that he made, and which seems to bear a construction which is extraordinarily important in this connection. I understood him to say that the public assistance authorities will be enjoined under the Bill to have regard to the tax upon a man's income in assessing the amount which he can be called upon to pay. Does that mean that they are to be instructed by the Minister to regard only the net income as income and not the gross income? If that is the meaning of the Minister's statement, the case which has been put by those who put forward this Clause has largely been met. If the Commissioners are required to have regard only to net income after the payment of tax, what we want will be achieved. Possibly that is the method by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to meet this very real and human claim.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 267.1589
|Division No. 281.]||AYES.||[5.52 p.m.|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Cripps, Sir Stafford||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Curry, A. C.||Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)|
|Banfield, John William||Daggar, George||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Batey, Joseph||Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Bernays, Robert||Dobbie, William||Grunay, Thomas W.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Edwards, Charles||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Harris, Sir Percy|
|Cape, Thomas||Gardner, Benjamin Walter||Holdsworth, Herbert|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Janner, Barnett|
|Cove, William G.||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Jenkins, Sir William|
|John, William||Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot||West, F. R.|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||White, Henry Graham|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Milner, Major James||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Pickering, Ernest H.||Williams Dr. John H. (Lianelly)|
|Kirkwood, David||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)||Wilmot, John|
|Lawson, John James||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Leonard, William||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Lunn, William||Smith, Tom (Normanton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Summersby, Charles H.||Mr. Walter Rea and Mr. Harcourt|
|Maclean, Nell (Giasgow, Govan)||Thorne, William James||Johnstone.|
|Mainwaring, William Henry||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Duckworth, George A. v.||Lees-Jones, John|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)||Eady, George H.||Liddall, Walter S.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Edmondson, Major Sir James||Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest|
|Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Elmley, Viscount||Loder, Captain J. de Vere|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.|
|Balniel, Lord||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Everard, W. Lindsay||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Fermoy, Lord||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Fox, Sir Gifford||McKie, John Hamilton|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Fremantle, Sir Francis||McLean, Major Sir Alan|
|Bell, Sir Alfred L.||Galbraith, James Francis Wallace||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest|
|Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley||Ganzonl, Sir John||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.|
|Blindell, James||Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.|
|Borodale, Viscount||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Marsden, Commander Arthur|
|Bossom, A. C.||Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Martin, Thomas B.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Golf, Sir Park||Meller, Sir Richard James|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)|
|Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Granville, Edgar||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Moreing, Adrian C.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Graves, Marjorie||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Brown, Brig. -Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)||Grimston, R. V.||Munro, Patrick|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)|
|Burnett, John George||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)|
|Burton, Colonel Henry Walter||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Guy, J. C. Morrison||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Hales, Harold K.||Peake, Captain Osbert|
|Carver, Major William H.||Hanbury, Cecil||Peat, Charles u.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hanley, Dennis A.||Percy, Lord Eustace|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Hartington, Marquess of||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Petherick, M.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)|
|Clarke, Frank||Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.||Peto, Geoffrey K, (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Pike, Cecil F.|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Hepworth, Joseph||Potter, John|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey||Hornby, Frank||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Horsbrugh, Florence||Procter, Major Henry Adam|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Howard, Tom Forrest||Pybus, Sir Percy John|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Radford, E. A.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Copeland, Ida||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Ramsbotham, Herwald|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hurd, Sir Percy||Ramsden, Sir Eugene|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Reld, Capt. A. Cunningham.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Iveagh, Countess of||Remer, John R.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Jamleson, Douglas||Rickards, George William|
|Crossley, A. C.||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Ker, J. Campbell||Robinson, John Roland|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Davison, Sir William Henry||Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Kimball, Lawrence||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Dickle, John P.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Donner, P. W.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)|
|Dower, Captain A. V. G.||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Drewe, Cedric||Law, Sir Alfred||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)|
|Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Rutherford, John (Edmonton)||Spencer, Captain Richard A.||Train, John|
|Salmon, Sir Isidore||Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Salt, Edward W.||Spens, William Patrick||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Stones, James||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Savery, Samuel Servington||Storey, Samuel||Warrencer, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Scone, Lord||Stourton, Hon. John J.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Strauss, Edward A.||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.|
|Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Strickland, Captain W. F.||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Skelton, Archibald Noel||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C)||Templeton, William P.||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Smithers, Sir Waldron||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles||Withers, Sir John James|
|Somerset, Thomas||Thorp, Linton Theodore||Womersley, Sir Walter|
|Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Soper, Richard||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.||Touche, Gordon Cosmo||Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel|
|Sir A. Lambert Ward.|